http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: VEERAPPA PILLAI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAMAN & RAMAN LTD. and OTHERS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/03/1952

BENCH: AIYAR, N. CHANDRASEKHARA BENCH: AIYAR, N. CHANDRASEKHARA SASTRI, M. PATANJALI (CJ) MAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND MUKHERJEA, B.K. DAS, SUDHI RANJAN

CITATION:  1952 AIR  192            1952 SCR  583  CITATOR INFO :  R          1954 SC 440  (11)  R          1955 SC 233  (21,22)  F          1957 SC 232  (19)  E&D        1957 SC 489  (16)  R          1958 SC 398  (19)  R          1960 SC 321  (20,23)  F          1969 SC 493  (8)  F          1970 SC 759  (3)

ACT:       Constitution  of  India, Art.  226--Order  of  Traffic Board  granting  permit  to run motor  buses  to  particular person--Application  to High Court by rival  claimant  under Art. 226 for quashing the order and for a direction to grant permits  to him--Maintainability-Jurisdiction of High  Court to   interfere--Motor   Vehicles  Act,   1939   --Grant   of permit--Whether  depends on ownership of bus--Discretion  of Traffic Board.

HEADNOTE:      The  writs  referred  to in Art. 226  are  intended  to enable the High Court to issue them in grave cases where the subordinate  tribunals  or  bodies or  officers  act  wholly without jurisdiction, or in excess of it, or in violation of the  principles of natural justice, or refuse to exercise  a jurisdiction vested in them, or there is an   error apparent on the face of the record and such act, omission or error or excess  has resulted in manifest injustice.  However  exten- sive the jurisdiction may be, it is not so wide or large  as to  enable the High Court to convert itself into a court  of appeal and examine for itself the correctness of the,  deci- sions  impugned  and decide what is the proper  view  to  be taken or the order to be made. The  Motor  Vehicles  Act contains a  complete  and  precise scheme  for regulating  the issue of permits, providing what matters  are to be taken into consideration as relevant  and prescribing appeals and revisions from subordinate bodies to higher  authorities, and the issue or refusal of permits  is solely within the discretion of the transport   authorities;

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

it is not a matter of right.      Where,  in  a dispute between two rival  claimants  for running through a particular route five buses, which each of them  alleged  he  had purchased from a  third  person,  the Central  Road  Traffic Board, Madras, after  calling  for  a report  from the Regional Transport Officer and  considering several  circumstances  that had a material bearing  on  the case, restored the permanent permits which had been  granted to  one  of the claimants,  but on  an  application  by  the other  claimant  under Art. 226 of the Constitution  to  the High  Court of Madras for a writ of certiorari quashing  the orders of the Regional Transport Authority, the Central Road Traffic  Board  and the State of Madras, and for a  writ  of mandamus to the respondents to transfer, issue or grant 584 permanent  permits  to the petitioner, the  High  Court  set aside the order of the Central Traffic Board, relying mainly on  the fact that the petitioner’s title to the  five  buses had  been  established  and directed  the  Regional  Traffic Authority  to grant to the petitioner permits in respect  of the five buses:     Held, that under the Motor Vehicles  Act, the issue of a permit  for a bus was not dependent on the ownership of  the bus  but  on other considerations also, and as  the  Central Traffic Board had issued an order granting permits to one of the  claimants after considering all circumstances the  High Court  acted  erroneously in interfering with the  Order  of Traffic  Board on an application under Art. 226 and  in  any event the order of the High Court issuing a direction to the Regional  Transport Authority to grant permits to the  other party was clearly in excess of its powers and jurisdiction.     The  Motor Vehicles Act is a statute which  creates  new rights and liabilities and prescribes an elaborate procedure for their regulation.  No one is entitled to a permit as  of right  even if he satisfies all the  prescribed  conditions. The  grant of a permit is entirely within the discretion  of the  transport authorities and naturally depends on  several circumstances which have to be taken into account.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:  Civil Appeal No. 159 of 1951. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated 13th  of  April, 1951, of the High Court  of  Judicature  at Madras  (Rajamannar C.J. and Somasundaram J.) in C.M.P.  No. 122/15  of 1950.  M.C.  Setalvad  (C. R. Pattabhi Raman, with  him)  for  the appellant. C.K. Daphtary (M. Natesan, with him) for the respondent No.1 V.K.T. Chari, Advocate-General of Madras (R. Ganapathi lyer, with him) for respondent No. 4.     1952. March 17. The Judgment of the Court was  delivered by     CHANDRASEKHARA  AIYAR  J.---This appeal  arises  as  the result  of special leave to appeal granted by this Court  on the  1st of May, 1951, against an order of the  Madras  High Court  dated 13th April, 1951, quashing certain  proceedings of  the Regional Transport Authority, Tanjore, and the  Cen- tral  Traffic Board, Madras, dated 19th January,  1950,  and 3rd March, 585 1950,  respectively,  and an order of the  first  respondent (the State of Madras) dated 7th November, 1950, and  direct- ing the issue to Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd.,  (Petitioners

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

before  the  High Court) of permits for the  five  buses  in respect of which a joint application had been made original- ly by them and one T.D. Balasubramania Pillai.     The  present  appellant,  G. Veerappa  Pillai,  was  the fourth  respondent  in  the High Court.  The  present  first respondents  (Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd.) were  the  peti- tioners before the High Court Present respondents Nos. 2,  3 and  4 were respectively respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3  before the High Court.     The  dispute is between the appellant and Messrs.  Raman and  Raman Ltd., who were competing bus proprietors  in  the Tanjore  District; and it is over the issues of five  perma- nent permits for buses Nos. M.D.O. 81, M.D.O. 230, M.D.O. 6, M.D.O. 7 and M. D.O. 759 on the route between Kumbakonam and Karaikal.  It  has been a long-drawn game with  many  moves, counter-moves, advances and checkmates, both sides  display- ing  unusual  assiduity and skill in  their  manoeuvres  for position.  But it is unnecessary to set out in great  detail all the steps taken, as they have been narrated in the order of  High Court and many of them are of  insignificant  rele- vance for disposal of this appeal.  I shall state here  only what is material.      The ’C’ permits for the five buses stood originally  in the name of Balasubramania Pillai. The buses were agreed  to be  purchased from him by Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd.,  and there  was a joint application by the transferor and  trans- feree on 10th March, 1944, for transfer of the ownership and of the ’C’ permits in the name of the purchasers.  Two  days later,  Veerappa Pillai, proprietor of the Sri  Sathi  Viias Bus  Service,  who is the appellant before us,  applied  for temporary  permits to ply two of his own vehicles  over  the same  route, stating that the vehicles of the  two  agencies which  held the permits were mostly out of action. It was  a fact that out of the five buses sold 586 by  Balasubramania Pillai, only two were then  running;  the other  three were under repairs. The permanent  permits  for the  sold  buses were suspended by order  of  the  Secretary dated 28th March, 1944.  Temporary permits for buses  M.D.O. 920,  894,  918,  M.S.C. 7632 and 7482 had  been  issued  to Veerappa Pillai during the same month.     Now we come to another chapter in the story.  Balasubra- mania Pillai resiled from the joint application and  repudi- ated  it as having been got from him by fraud.   The  Secre- tary, Road Traffic Board, thereupon refused to transfer  the ownership  on the 19th March, 1944, and this order was  con- firmed by the Board on 29th May, 1944, Balasubramania Pillai and Veerappa Pillai made a joint application on 10th  April, 1944, for transfer of the buses and the original permits  in favour of Veerappa Pillai who had on the same date agreed to purchase  the vehicles. The Secretary granted this  applica- tion on the same date Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd., took the matter  before the Central Road Traffic Board and they  made an order on 16th August, 1944, upholding the issue of tempo- rary  permits to Veerappa Pillai for his buses  M.D.O.  920, 894,918, M.S.C. 7632 and 7482, but setting aside the  trans- fer  of registry of the original buses and the  transfer  of the  permits  relating to the same.  On  an  application  by Veerappa Pillai to review its order dated 16th August, 1944, the  Central  Road Traffic Board allowed on  27th  November, 1944,  only the transfer of the ownership of the  buses  but not a transfer of the permits.     Yet  another move in the game was this  Veerappa  Pillai filed a suit in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Kumbako- nam, on 3rd October, 1944, for recovery of possession of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

original  five buses from Messrs. Raman and Raman  Ltd.,  on the  strength  of his purchase from  Balasubramania  Pillai. The Subordinate Judge appointed Veerappa Pillai as  Receiver on 17th March, 1945, and the five disputed buses were deliv- ered  to him on 26th April, 1945. Two of the buses M.D.O.  6 and  7 were repaired by him and put on the route  under  his temporary permits. The suit was decreed in 587 his  favour on 2nd May, 1946.  Later, he repaired the  other three buses M.D.O. 759, 230 and 81 and began to run them  on the same route under the temporary permits he held. Veerappa Pillai  was discharged from receivership on 18th  September, 1946.     On the strength of the Sub-Court decree, Veerappa Pillai again  applied for a permanent transfer of the permits,  and on  22nd July, 1946, the Central Road Traffic  Board  trans- ferred the petition to the Regional Transport Authority with an  intimation  that  it saw no objection to  the  issue  of regular permits to Veerappa Pillai for the disputed buses or to  their  transfer in his name, provided there  were  valid permits  in existence. This view appears to have been  modi- fied  later and on 2nd September, 1946, the Regional  Trans- port Officer directed the issue of temporary permits to  the buses  for  the  period from 3rd September,  1946,  to  31st October,  1946, subject to the condition that the  issue  of the permits did not affect the rights of either party in the matter  under dispute.  Thereupon, the Government was  moved by Veerappa Pillai and also by Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd., but the Government declined to interfere and the result  was an  order  on  30th June, 1947, by  the  Regional  Transport Authority to the following effect:-     " Since the subject-matter is on appeal before the  High Court, the matter will lie over pending the decision of  the High Court.  The temporary permits are continued as is being done."     A fresh petition by Veerappa Pillai to the Central  Road Traffic  Board,  Madras,  was unsuccessful,  but  a  further appeal to the Government of Madras ended in his favour in an order  dated 29th March, 1949.  The order is in these  terms :--     "Shri  Sathi  Viias Bus Service, Porayar,  Tanjore  dis- trict, have been permitted by the Regional Transport Author- ity,  Tanjore, to run their buses M.D.O. 6, 7, 81,  230  and 750 on the Kumbakonam-Karaikal route on  temporary   permits from 1944 pending 588 the  High  Court’s decision  on  the question  of  permanent ownership of  the buses.  Government consider it undesirable to  keep   these buses running on temporary  permits  for  a long  and  indefinite period. Further Sri  Sathi  Vilas  Bus Service have secured the decision of the Sub-Court, Kumbako- nam,  in their favour about the permanent ownership  of  the buses. In the circumstances the Regional Transport  Authori- ty, Tanjore, is directed to grant permanent permits for  the buses  of Sri Sathi Vilas Bus Service, Porayar, referred  to above in lieu of the existing temporary permits."     On the basis of this Government order, permanent permits were  issued  in favour of Veerappa Pillai  on  18th  April, 1949. Getting to know of this last order, Messrs. Raman  and Raman Ltd.,approached the Government     Madras with a  petition praying for clarification of the order by making it expressly subject to the decision of  the High  Court regarding the title to the said five  buses  and that  in the event of the High Court deciding the appeal  in favour of Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd. "the above said  five

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

permanent  permits will be taken away from  Veerappa  Pillai and  given  to them." The Minister of Transport,  who  dealt with the matter, stated on the petition "that was my  inten- tion also."     The  High Court reversed the decree of the Sub-Court  on 2nd  September,  1949, and came to the conclusion  that  the title  of  Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd., to the  five  buses prevailed  over that of Veerappa Pillai. On 19th  September, 1949, they applied to the Government for cancellation of the five permits issued to Veerappa Pillai and for grant of  the same  to them. The Government declined to interfere  as  the Regional  Transport Authority was the  competent  authority, vide order dated 16th  November, 1949. In their  application to  the Regional ’Fransport Authority dated  28th  November, 1949, Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd., asked for withdrawal  of the permits. In the meantime, that is on 14th October, 1949, Veerappa Pillai applied for renewal of his permanent permits held for his own 589 buses  Nos. M.D.O. 1357, 20, 1366, 1110, 1077,  M.D.O.  1368 and M.S.C.7632, which had been substituted for the  disputed buses  as  they  had become unroadworthy  and  useless.  The application  for  renewal has under section  58,  sub-clause (2), of the Act to be treated as a fresh application for new permits.  This procedure was followed and on  22nd  October, 1949, a notification was issued inviting objections  against the  renewal and giving 30th November, 1949, as the date  of hearing.  No  objections  were received  and  the  Secretary renewed  the permits for two years from 1st  January,  1950. This order was dated 3rd January, 1950. The Regional  Trans- port Authority dealing with the application of Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd., dated 28th November, 1949, resolved on  19th January,  1950, that the permanent permits issued to Veerap- pa  Pillai  should be cancelled, that the  route  should  be declared  vacant  in  respect of the five  buses  and  fresh applications should be invited and dealt with on the merits. The  order  further stated that "in the  meanwhile   Sri  G. Veerappa Pillai and Raman and Raman will be given  temporary permits for running two and three buses respectively on  the route.  The  permanent permits will be cancelled with  imme- diate  effect.  Raman and Raman should put in the  buses  as quickly  as possible. Till then Sri Veerappa Pillai will  be given temporary permits so as not to dislocate public  traf- fic."     Both  the parties were dissatisfied with this order  and preferred appeals to the Central Road Traffic Board, Madras, which dismissed the appeal of Messrs. Raman and Raman  Ltd., and  restored  the permanent permits of Veerappa  Pillai  by order  dated  the 3rd March, 1950. Messrs  Raman  and  Raman Ltd., moved the Government, but it declined to interfere  by G.O., dated 7th November, 1950.     Thereupon,  Messrs.  Raman  and  Raman Ltd.,  moved  the High  Court on 4th December, 1950, under article 226 of  the Constitution  in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.  12215  of 1950  for a writ of certiorari for quashing the  orders  and the proceedings of the 590 Regional  Transport  Authority,  the  Central  Road  Traffic Board,  Madras, and the State of Madras dated 19th  January, 1950, 3rd March, 1950, and 7th November, 1950, respectively, and for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other such appro- priate directions to the first respondent to transfer, issue or  grant  "the five pucca permits in respect of  the  route Kumbakonam  to Karaikkal to the petitioner herein"  (Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd.) It is on this petition that’the  order

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

challenged in this appeal was made by the High Court.     The  High  Court took the view that throughout  all  the stages  prior to the High Court’s decree, the  parties,  the transport  authorities vested with the power to  issue  per- mits,  and  the Government also proceeded upon  the  footing that the transfer of the permits was dependent on the  title to the buses and that Veerappa Pillai obtained the temporary and permanent permits only in his capacity as transferee and not  in  his individual right. To quote  the  learned  Chief Justice:"the  conduct  of the parties, the attitude  of  the transport  authorities  including  the  Government  are  all explicable only on the assumption that the rights of parties were  consequent  on the ownership of the five  vehicles  in question.  The fourth respondent having obtained the benefit of  temporary  and permanent permits as  a  transferee  from Balasubramania  Pillai all this time cannot be heard now  to say after the decision of this Court which has negatived his claim and upheld the claim of the applicant that the  appli- cant should not enjoy the fruits of his success." He further points out that the  procedure laid down by the Motor  Vehi- cles  Act and the rules for grant of fresh permits  was  not followed  and that long before the application  for  renewal was  allowed,  the  Regional Transport  Authority  had  been informed of the decision of the High Court. The order of the Central Road Traffic Board was in his -opinion most unsatis- factory,  as  it  was  based  on  a  quibbling   distinction between  "withdrawal" and "cancellation" of the permits.  In his  view,  the orders complained against  deprived  Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd., of the fruits of the 591 decree obtained by them at the hands of the High Court after much expenditure of time and money.     An  examination  of the relevant sections of  the  Motor Vehicles  Act does not support the view that the issue of  a permit  for  a bus--which falls within the definition  of  a "stage carriage "--is necessarily dependent on the ownership of  vehicle. All that is required for obtaining a permit  is possession  of  the  bus. As ownership is  not  a  condition precedent for the grant of permits and as a person can get a permit  provided  he  is in possession of  a  vehicle  which satisfies  the  requirements  of the statute  or  the  rules framed thereunder, we have to hold  that the parties and the authorities  were  labouring under a misconception  if  they entertained  a  contrary view. But the assumption  on  which they  proceeded may perhaps be explained, if not  justified, on  the  ground that it was supposed that  the  question  of ownership  of  the  vehicles had an  important  or  material bearing on the question as to which of them had a  preferen- tialclaim for the permits. It may well be it Was one of  the factors  to  be taken into account and it seems to  us  that this was apparently the reason why the question of issue  of permanent  permits was postponed from time to time  till  we come  to  the order of the Government dated 29th  March,  on petitions presented by both the contestants.      If  matters had stood as they were till the  Government had  made  this  order, something could have  been  said  in favour  of  Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd., in  the  event  of their  ultimate  success in the High Court  as  regards  the title  to  the five buses.  But the said order  altered  the situation.  In  the order, the direction for  the  grant  of permanent  permits is not rested solely on the  decision  of the  Sub-Court  in  favour of Veerappa  Pillai  but  another reason was also given, namely, that Government considered it undesirable  to keep the buses running on temporary  permits for  a long and indefinite period.  In giving  this  reason,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

they were stating a policy. 77 592        As  observed already, the High Court by  their  judg- ment   dated  2nd  September,  1949,  reversed  the   decree of  the  Subordinate Judge and dismissed  Veerappa  Pillai’s suit  for possession of the buses based on his title. If  it were  the  law  that the question of  possession   based  on ownership was decisive as regards the grant     of  permits, and  if  no other circumstances were available to  be  taken into  account when the question of the  issue  of  permanent permits again came up for consideration, it would have  been easy  to  hold that Messrs.  Raman and Raman  Ltd.,  had  at least a preferential  claim.  But  unfortunately  for  them, both these requisites are not satisfied.  It has been point- ed  out already that nowhere do we find in the Act  anything to   indicate   that  the  issue  of  permits   depends   on ownership. Other circumstances which had a material    bear- ing  as to which of them was entitled to the permits     had come   into  existence  since  the  date  of  the   original joint  application  and  were  taken  into  account  by  the transport authorities and by the Government. The    order of 19th  January, 1950, of the Regional  Transport    Authority sought  to render rough and ready justice  between the  par- ties by the adoption of what may be  called a middle course. The  terms of the order have  already been set out.   Before disposing of the appeals    of both the parties, the Central Traffic Board appears  to have called for a report from  the Regional  Transport Officer.  In this report, attention  was drawn to the fact that all the five buses had been  replaced by   new vehicles and that the registration certificates had been  cancelled  as  a result  of  the  replacement.   After Balasubramania  Pillai,  it  was  Veerappa  Pillai  who  was running  the buses continuously on this route for nearly   5 years  and  he  also  obtained  the  privilege  of  securing the permanent permits.  The Central Traffic Board’s    order of  3rd  March,  1950, restoring the  permanent  permits  of Veerappa  Pillai was based on the fact that   Messrs.  Raman and Raman Ltd. asked for withdrawal  of the permits and  not their cancellation and that no opportunity had been given to Veerappa Pillai to show        cause why his permits  should not be cancelled; and 593 the procedure prescribed for cancellation was not followed.      When  the  Government was moved by  Messrs.  Raman  and Raman Ltd., under section 64 (a) of the Motor Vehicles  Act, they had before them a petition for withdrawal of the perma- nent  permits issued to Veerappa Pillai and for transfer  or grant  of five ’pucca permits’ relating to the  five  buses. The  Government granted stay of the appellate order  of  the Central Road Traffic Board pending disposal of the  revision petition’and called for a report from the subordinate trans- port  authorities. Two important facts were brought  to  the notice  of  the Government in the report Messrs.  Raman  and Raman Ltd. did not file any objections to the renewal of the permits  sought by Veerappa Pillai. What is more  important, they  had  no permits from the French  authorities  enabling them to run any buses on the portion of the route which  lay in  French territory. It was further pointed out that  there was  no subsisting joint application to support the  request for  transfer and that the original permits in the  name  of Bala.  subramanian had ceased to exist after  31st  December 1944.  The  Government had also before  them  two  petitions dated  8th March, 1950, and 25th October, 1950, from  Messrs Raman  and  Raman Ltd. and two petitions dated  29th  March,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

1950,  and 8th June, 1950, from Veerappa Pillai.  It  is  on the  basis  of all these materials that the  Government  de- clined  to interfere with the decision of the  Central  Road Traffic Board.     It is contended for the appellant that in this state  of affairs  the  High  Court acting under Article  226  of  the Constitution  had no right to interfere with the  orders  of the transport authorities.     It  is  unnecessary for the disposal of this  appeal  to consider  and  decide on the exact scope and extent  of  the jurisdiction  of the High Court under Article  226.  Whether the  writs  it can issue must be analogous to the  writs  of habeas  corpus,  mandamus,  prohibition,  quo  warranto  and certiorari specified therein and the power is subject to all the limitations, or restrictions 594 imposed  on the exercise of  this  jurisdiction, or  whether the  High  Court  is     at liberty to issue  any  "suitable directions  or orders  or writs  untramelled ,by any  condi- tions, whenever    the interests of justice so require, is a large  and somewhat difficult problem which does  not  arise for solution now.  Mr. Setalvad appearing  for the appellant urged  two narrower grounds as sufficient for his  purposes. Firstly, he urged that however wide the jurisdiction of  the High Court might be under Article 226, it could never  exer- cise  its  powers under the article in such a manner  as  to convert  itself into a court of appeal sitting  in  judgment over  every tribunal or authority in the  State  discharging administrative  or  quasi-judicial functions.  Secondly,  he maintained that the Motor Vehicles Act with the rules framed thereunder  dealing  with the grant of permits  is  a  self- contained code and that in respect of the rights and liabil- ities  created by such a statute the manner  of  enforcement must  be  sought within the statute itself. It  was  further urged  by  him that in any event, the High Court  could  not substitute its own view or discretion for the view taken  or discretion  exercised by the specified authorities, even  if it was erroneous or unsound.     Such  writs as are referred to in Article 226 are  obvi- ously  intended  to enable the High Court to issue  them  in grave  cases  where the subordinate tribunals or  bodies  or officers  act wholly without jurisdiction, or in  excess  of it, or in violation of the principles of natural justice, or refuse  to exercise a jurisdiction vested in them, or  there is  an  error apparent on the face of the record,  and  such act,  omission,  error, or excess has resulted  in  manifest injustice.  However  extensive the jurisdiction may  be,  it seems to us that it is not so wide or large as to enable the High  Court  to convert itself into a Court  of  appeal  and examine for itself the correctness of the decision  impugned and decide what is the proper view to be taken or the  order to  be made Mr. Daphtary, who appeared for  the  respondent, said nothing to controvert this position.  His argument 595 was that if all along the authorities and the Government had proceeded  upon  a  particular footing and  dealt  with  the rights of the parties on that basis, it was not open to them afterwards to change front and give the go by altogether  to the conception of the rights of parties entertained by  them till then. According to him, there was manifest injustice to his client in allowing them to do so and this was the reason which impelled the High Court to make the order which is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal.     The  Motor Vehicles Act is a statute which  creates  new rights and liabilities and prescribes an elaborate procedure

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

for their regulation.  No one is entitled to a permit as  of right  even if he satisfies all the  prescribed  conditions. The  grant of a permit is entirely within the discretion  of the  transport authorities and naturally depends on  several circumstances  which  have to be taken  into  account.   The Regional  Transport Authority and the  Provincial  Transport Authority  are entrusted under section 42 with  this  power. They  may be described as administrative  bodies  exercising quasijudicial  functions in the matter of the grant of  per- mits.  Under rule 8 of the Madras Motor Vehicles  Rules  the Regional  Transport  Authority is called  the  Road  Traffic Board  and the Provincial Transport Authority is called  the Central Road Traffic Board. These bodies or authorities  are constituted  by  the  Provincial’  Government.  The  matters which are to be taken into account in granting or refusing a stage  carriage  permit  are specified in  section  47.   By delegation under rule 134 A, the Secretary of the Road Traf- fic  Board may exercise certain powers as regards the  grant or  refusal  of stage carriage permits and  under  rule  136 there  is an appeal to the Board from these orders.  Similar powers  of  delegation are vested in the  Secretary  to  the Central Board and an appeal lies to the Central Board  under rule  148(1).   From an original order of the  Road  Traffic Board  there is an appeal to the Central Board and from  the original orders of the Central Board to the Government, vide rules 147 and 148 An amendment introduced by the Madras  Act XX of 1948 596 and found as section 64 A in the Act vests a power of  revi- sion  in the Provincial Government.  Besides  this  specific provision, there is a general provision in section 43 A that the  Provincial Government may issue such orders and  direc- tions of a general character as it may consider necessary to the  Provincial Transport Authority or a Regional  Transport Authority  in respect of any matter relating to road  trans- port; and such transport authority shall give effect to  all such orders and directions.  There is, therefore, a  regular hierarchy of administrative bodies established to deal  with the regulation of transport by means of motor vehicles.     Thus we have before us a complete and precise scheme for regulating the issue of permits, providing what matters  are to be taken into consideration as relevant, and  prescribing appeals  and  revisions from subordinate  bodies  to  higher authorities.  The remedies for the redress of grievances  or the correction of errors are found in the statute itself and it  is to these remedies that resort must generally be  had. As  observed  already, the issue or refusal  of  permits  is solely  within the discretion of the  transport  authorities and it is not a matter of right.     We  are accordingly of opinion that this was not a  case for  interference with the discretion that was exercised  by the Transport Authorities paying regard to all the facts and the surrounding circumstances.     Further, it will be noticed that the High Court here did not content itself with merely quashing the proceedings,  it went further and directed the Regional Transport  Authority, Tanjore,  "to grant to the petitioner permits in respect  of the  five buses in respect of which a joint application  was made originally by the petitioner and Balasubramania  Pillai and  that in case the above buses have been  condemned,  the petitioner shall be at liberty to provide substitutes within such  time as may be prescribed by the authorities." Such  a direction was clearly in  excess of its powers and jurisdic- tion. 597

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

   For  the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed  and the order of the High Court set aside. Each party will  bear their own costs of these proceedings throughout. Appeal allowed.    Agent for the appellant: S. Subrahmanyarn.    Agent for respondent No. 1: M.S.K. Sastri.    Agent for respondent No. 4: P.A. Mehta.